CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. Index No. 157783/18, 596011/19; Appeal No. 5535; Case No. 2024-06221
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2026

Tejeda v. 57th & 6th Ground LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County. The plaintiff, Juan Miguel Presinal Tejeda, was granted partial summary judgment on his Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims after being injured due to a scaffold lacking guardrails. The Supreme Court also granted landlords' motion for summary judgment on their cross-claims for contractual and common-law indemnification and breach of contract against the plaintiff's employer and third-party defendants. The appellate court found that the employer's insurance policies were non-compliant with lease requirements, creating a gap in coverage and resulting in damages to the landlords. The court concluded that the violation of Labor Law § 240(1) proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries and affirmed the lower court's decisions.

Scaffolding AccidentSummary JudgmentIndemnificationBreach of ContractInsurance Coverage DisputePremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyThird-Party ClaimsDuty to Provide Safe Workplace
References
4
Case No. LAO 0786323, MON 0300627
Regular
Jul 09, 2008

SALVADOR TEJEDA vs. RALLE ENGINEERING, ST. PAUL/TRAVELERS INSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, finding that the WCJ's apportionment of permanent disability was not supported by substantial evidence, despite a stipulation to a cumulative trauma injury. The Board amended the decisions to defer issues of permanent disability and apportionment, returning the cases to the trial level for further development of the record on these specific points. The existing findings on injury, excluding apportionment, were otherwise affirmed.

Salvador TejedaRalle EngineeringSt. Paul/Travelers InsuranceLAO 0786323MON 0300627Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJPermanent DisabilityApportionment
References
9
Case No. ADJ8905657
Regular
Nov 27, 2013

SALVADOR SANCHEZ vs. ANTONIO RAMOS CONCRETE, AMTRUST

This case involved an applicant, Salvador Sanchez, and defendants Antonio Ramos Concrete and Amtrust. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final order, specifically an Order Denying Change of Venue, which does not determine substantive rights. The WCAB also denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant's attorney was admonished for filing a petition challenging a non-final order.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutory ProceduralEvidentiary DecisionsRemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmInadequate Remedy
References
6
Case No. ADJ9038979
Regular
Jun 14, 2018

SALVADOR BUENO vs. TRUGREEN LANDCARE, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Salvador Bueno's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed significantly late. California law provides 25 days to file a petition for reconsideration after a decision is served by mail, with limited extensions. The petition was filed on May 3, 2018, over nine months after the WCJ's August 3, 2017 decision. Untimely petitions are jurisdictional defects, meaning the WCAB lacks the authority to consider them.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimelinessDismissalWCJ decisionMail serviceBusiness day extensionFiling deadlineJurisdictionalAppeals BoardWCAB
References
4
Case No. ADJ7654039
Regular
Nov 10, 2015

SALVADOR TOVAR vs. SCHERFIELD RANCHES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Salvador Tovar's petition for reconsideration because it was filed untimely. The petition was submitted more than 25 days after the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision was served, exceeding the jurisdictional deadline. Even if the petition had been timely, it would have been denied due to its insufficient content. Therefore, the WCAB lacked authority to consider the substance of the petition and ordered its dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWCABWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJ DecisionLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsJurisdictional LimitAppeals Board AuthoritySkeletal Petition
References
4
Case No. ADJ563691
Regular
Dec 16, 2018

SALVADOR CAZAREZ vs. THE LAKES COUNTRY CLUB, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision disallowing a portion of a lien claimant's bill. The Board found that the lien claimant waived the issue of utilization review by failing to raise it at trial. The Board also declined to issue a notice of intention to impose sanctions, despite the WCJ's recommendation. The case involved industrial injuries to Salvador Cazarez, which were settled via Compromise and Release.

Petition for ReconsiderationUtilization ReviewLabor Code §4610WaiverAdmissibility of EvidenceAgreed Medical ExaminerLien ClaimantCompromise and ReleaseReasonably Required ServicesSubstantial Medical Evidence
References
2
Case No. ADJ6750650, ADJ7660512
Regular
Oct 02, 2017

FRANCISCA TEJEDA vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DPSS, SEDGWICK COLA

This case before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the applicant, Francisca Tejeda, against the County of Los Angeles DPSS. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the reasoning of the administrative law judge. Crucially, the Board found that its statutory 60-day deadline to act on the petition was tolled due to administrative error. This tolling period, analogous to the situation in *Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, allowed the Board to issue a timely denial of the petition despite exceeding the initial timeframe.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedOperation of LawDue ProcessTolledLabor Code Section 5909WCJ ReportMisplaced FileStatutory Time Limits
References
0
Case No. ADJ7022015
Regular
Jan 28, 2013

SALVADOR SANCHEZ vs. BENTLEY PRINCE STREET, THE HARTFORD, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

This order dismisses applicant Salvador Sanchez's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order determining substantive rights, but rather from interlocutory procedural decisions. The Board further denies the petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Applicant's procedural requests were deemed non-final and therefore not subject to reconsideration or removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionNon-FinalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
8
Case No. ADJ9274305
Regular
Dec 15, 2014

SALVADOR REYES vs. AVP&H A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Salvador Reyes's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against an interlocutory order, not a final decision. The Petition for Removal was dismissed as moot, as the underlying issue regarding a specific Qualified Medical Examiner appeared to be resolved. Both petitions were denied as they did not address substantive rights or liabilities. The order reflects standard practice for non-final and moot petitions.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityMootnessQMEOrder to CompelMeet and Confer
References
9
Case No. ADJ2623172
Regular
Sep 01, 2016

SALVADOR SANCHEZ vs. LA BREA AUTO BODY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves lien claimant Elena Konstant seeking payment for medical treatment and reporting related to applicant Salvador Sanchez's alleged industrial psychiatric injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Konstant's petition for reconsideration after the initial denial of her claim. Subsequently, a Commissioner's Conference was held where Konstant and the defendant reached a full settlement of all disputes. Therefore, Konstant's petition for reconsideration has been rendered moot and is dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetitionLien ClaimantFindings and OrderPsychiatric InjuryCommissioner's ConferenceStipulation and OrderMootDismissed
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 63 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational